City of Brass

using reconciliation to pass health care; Republican hypocrisy redux

“Budget reconciliation” is a technique that lets important bills in Congress pass the Senate with immunity from the filibuster. The bill must have direct relevance to budget issues, not policy, and the Senate Parliamentarian (not an elected official) is the one who makes the call (though bills intended to pass via reconciliation are drafted with his input so there are no surprises).

The reason this matters is because prior to the election in MA of Senator Brown (a Republican), the Democrats had 60 votes (ostensibly) in the Senate which is technically a filibuster-proof majority. In practice that 60 meant that conservative Democrats had tremendous leverage in shaping the health care bill, leading to a Senate bill that was much more conservative than the House counterpart. The final compromise bill would have reflected the Senate version much more than the House, for much the same reason.

Senator Brown’s victory actually upended the Democratic 60 vote majority – with 59, they no longer can override a Republican filibuster. But in a sense, that has permitted the Democrats more freedom, not less, as they are no longer forced to pacify the most conservative members of their caucus.

Let’s also not forget that it was the Republicans back in 2005 who were advocating the real “nuclear option” – to change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster outright raw majority rule. In contrast, today the Dems are discussing eventual filibuster reform, which wouldn’t take effect anytime soon but is more of laying the groundwork for the future.

The filibuster is definitely in need of reform, though it has its place. Retiring Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana discussed some of the need for filibuster reform in his op-ed announcing his decision not to run for re-election, citing it as one of the things he is frustrated with in Congress which prevents things from getting done:

Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.

Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.

What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60. During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.

Also related are the Federalist Papers No. 62 by James Madison, which gives some historical perspective on how the Filibuster was meant to be used. And VP Joe Biden had a great quote – that “no democracy has ever survived needing a supermajority.”

As President Obama pointed out this week, there are real and severe consequences to Americans in delaying health reform further. We need to get healthcare reform done, and the filibuster is the weapon used by the Party of No to deny Americans the relief they badly need. Since filibuster reform is not going to happen for a long time, the Democrats must use reconciliation to get the job done – and they will be rewarded for it come November.

You article is missing one very important point. Most American citizen don’t want the Dems form of health care reform.

Just Some Guy

…of bills that passed through “reconciliation” since 1980:
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (vetoed)
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (vetoed)
Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 (vetoed)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
They came in Reagan’s, Bush 41’s, Clinton’s, and Bush 43’s terms. Yet they all have one thing in common: they have to do with budgets and revenues. That’s what reconciliation is for; it’s why Congress came up with the procedure.
The health care bills are not budget/revenue bills. Like any bill, they touch on budget issues, but they also stomp on liberty and access to health care.
In short, your call of “hypocrisy” is hollow and ignorant.

Syed Nazim

To the guy above.
The Republican position is truly a hypocritical and shamelessly political one.
They cry that HCR is 1/6 of the entire nation’s BUDGET economy (yes that’s the tax and spend part) and therefore should be done slowly and not rushed through only to claim it has nothing to do with budget/revenue.
Please shut up! And Americans are for real health care reform. Not the one passed by the Senate but the one that includes the public option.

lm

If the political polls are right the filibuster is being used to make sure the Senate follows the wishes of the American people.

Disgusted American

Syed-
You make absolutely no sense at all. The government taking over healthcare and forcing us that much closer to a socialistic country has nothing to do with a budget/revenue bill! It is a communistic approach to ramming down our throats something that they refuse to live under themselves!! If this is such a great thing then why don’t they truly show us how much they believe in it and add themselves to this new plan? Plain and simple, because this has nothing to do with “better” or “less expensive” healthcare. It is about CONTROL! The government has NEVER been in charge of anything that anyone would consider well run and efficient! And less expensive? Are you kidding me? This coming from the same man that has spent over $50K per house that was “weather proofed” as part of the stimulus bill? I sure would like $50K to “weather proof” my house? Where does the money go? The same place the healthcare money and the good percentage of all governmental funds go…down the bureaucratic toilet bowl!! And you are dead wrong about the American people! 70% of Americans are against this takeover! The most liberal of all people I know are firmly against this bill and are very rapidly realizing the mistake they made this last election!!
So why don’t you “Please shut up”. I can only guess how you would gather the absolutely ludicrous idea that Americans want any form of socialized medicine…errr…I mean “public option. Unless you have taken a one person poll between your ears….

Boy when the Dems were strapped up again the 51 vote they sure had a lot to say. I’m not saying either party is right but enough is enough. Personally I wish they would argue for the next 10 years because maybe then we can get spending under control. Stay home till 2011 and we will all thank you!

hehe. thanks for your share.it is very useful for me. looking for your next your article.

http://www.bestcanadianpaydayloans.com canadian payday loans

Do you have any more info on this?

http://www.aaafaxlesspaydayloans.com payday loans no fax

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care. pwyszpumgfe

http://www.aaanofaxloans.com faxless payday loans

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

Proof denies faith
On Reddit, someone posted the following question: "What convinces you that the Quran is the literal Word of God?" I think this is precisely the wrong question.
The book/movie Life of Pi directly

Proud to be American, proud to be MuslimThis is a guest post by Safiya Dahodwala.
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS graced the land of America for the first time as the 53rd Dai (spiritual leader) of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community. It has been nearly a decade since his predecessor, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin bestowed his bountiful bl

is ISIS Islamic? Wrong question.There is an excellent longform essay on ISIS published in The Atlantic, "What does ISIS Really Want?" that lays out an excellent case fore ISIS being genuinely different in ideology, motivation and ethos than Al Qaeda. The real question boils down to, is ISIS "Islamic" or not - and makes an excellen

The Price of ExtremismThis is a guest post by Durriya Badani.
The execution style murder of three young North Carolina students, two of whom were hijab wearing Muslim women, raises questions regarding the rise of Islamaphobia in the United States in the form of hate crimes. Some will argue that the motive for the inc

About City of Brass

City of Brass by Aziz Poonawalla approaches issues from the perspective of a Muslim of the West. Aziz, a member of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community, has been blogging since early 2003 and co-founded the Brass Crescent Awards for the muslim blogsphere.